Florida Democrat Earl K. Wood and Alabama Republican Charles Beasley won their respective elections but they will not take office.

Both men died weeks before the November 6 election yet managed to beat their very much alive opponents by comfortable margins.

Wood died on October 15 from natural causes at age 96, during his campaign for a 12th term as Orange County Tax Collector in Orlando, Florida.

Criticized for rarely coming into the office while collecting a $150,000 salary and $90,000 pension, Wood initially announced he would step down, only to change his mind when a longtime political foe made plans to seek the seat.

Related

Wood’s wide name recognition after almost half a century in office scared off several serious contenders. His name remained on the ballot and he took 56 percent of the votes to 44 percent for a Republican who promised to eliminate the office altogether if elected.

Beasley, 77, died on October 12, possibly due to an aneurysm, while trying to reclaim his old seat on the Bibb County Commission in central Alabama.

Beasley’s name also remained on the ballot and he won about 52 percent of the vote. His Democratic opponent, incumbent Commissioner Walter Sansing, took the loss especially hard.

“It is a touchy situation. When you are running against a dead man, you are limited as to what you can say,” Sansing told Reuters.

He blamed people voting straight Republican tickets for his loss.

In Orlando, Scott Randolph, an outgoing Democratic state legislator and state party activist, was selected by his party to receive votes cast for Wood and he will assume the office. In Alabama, the governor will appoint a new commissioner with input from local Republicans.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/09/two-dead-men-win-elections-in-florida-and-alabama-and-not-by-small-margins/feed/1stdPeople wait to vote at the Good Shepherd Methodist Church during the U.S. presidential election in Kissimmee, Florida, in this November 6, 2012 photo.Ahmadinejad calls record U.S. election spending a ‘battleground for capitalists’ as Iran bans ‘luxury goods’http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/08/ahmadinejad-calls-record-u-s-election-spending-a-battleground-for-capitalists-as-iran-bans-luxury-goods/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/08/ahmadinejad-calls-record-u-s-election-spending-a-battleground-for-capitalists-as-iran-bans-luxury-goods/#commentsThu, 08 Nov 2012 17:40:55 +0000Reuters]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=231223

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday ridiculed the expense of the U.S. election a day after voters kept President Barack Obama for another four years, mocking the American process as a “battleground for capitalists” while speaking at a democracy forum.

Ahmadinejad, whose government has been criticized for human rights abuses and is subject to sanctions for its nuclear programs, told the forum in Indonesia that democracy has become a system where the minority rules over the majority.

“Just take a look at the situation in Europe and the U.S.,” Ahmadinejad said during the meeting’s opening day on Indonesia’s resort island of Bali. An “election, which is one of the manifestations of the people’s will, has become a battleground for the capitalists and an excuse for hasty spending.”

The price tag for the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign was the highest ever, soaring beyond $2-billion.

Ahmadinejad may be smarting because the international sanctions placed on Iran by the United States are starting to take their toll.

Iran has temporarily banned the import of some “luxury goods” including foreign-made cars and mobile phones, a state-run newspaper said on Thursday, to save billions of dollars for essential products in the face of worsening sanctions.

Iran’s oil exports, the lifeblood of its economy and the major source of revenue for the government, have dropped sharply over the past year because of Western sanctions imposed over Tehran’s disputed nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad’s criticism contrasted with other gathered leaders’ calls for more democracy and freedoms for citizens around the world.

As the two-day meeting opened, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said mutual respect and diversity are the foundations of democracy.

“We need to encourage greater respect for different values, faiths and religious beliefs,” Yudhoyono said. “We should not allow irresponsible acts such as the defamation of religion to divide us.”

Authorities have divided imports into 10 categories based on how essential they are seen to be, and will provide importers with dollars at a subsidized rate to buy basic goods.

The report by the state-run newspaper Iran Daily said import permission for some luxury goods, from foreign-made cars, mobile phones and laptops to home appliances and clothing, were no longer being issued “until there is a final review.”

“Those products not produced domestically will be removed from the list [of banned items] but most of the named products are produced in the country and there is no need to import them,” the report quoted Commerce Ministry official Sasan Khodaei as saying.

The Iranian government provides dollars at a rate of 12,260 rials each for specified priority goods. On the open market, a dollar costs around 30,000 rials.

The newspaper said Iran had annually spent around $12-billion to import luxury and non-essential goods.

Ahmadinejad also called for U.S. military bases to be dismantled worldwide and said the winner of the U.S. election made no difference to him.

“Coming or going, winning or losing is not important,” he told reporters. “The important thing is the policy and behavior. And this behavior must be changed.”

The international community fears Iran may be interested in possessing nuclear weapons, but the country has repeatedly said its uranium enrichment program is meant only for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and European Union have hit Iran hard with economic sanctions as a result of those concerns.

“The IAEA has inspected our nuclear facilities and 10 officials have reported that there is no indication that (the) Iran nuclear program has directed to non-peaceful purposes,” Ahmadinejad said.

Iran has also long been criticized for its human rights record, including the continued use of stoning as a method of capital punishment. Increased Internet crackdowns and the jailing of political prisoners and journalists were also recently highlighted in a report by the U.N.’s human rights expert on Iran.

The country erupted into violence three years ago when pro-democracy protesters took to the streets to demonstrate against the election of Ahmadinejad, calling it bogus and rigged.

In October, Iran banned the export of around 50 basic goods including wheat, flour, sugar, and red meat, as well as aluminium and steel ingots.

If Canadians were electing the next U.S. president Tuesday, these polling results would have Mitt Romney holding his head in his hands. In almost every measure of polling demographic, including having the winner live next door, Barack Obama is a clear favourite. The data comes from a Forum Research Inc. poll – conducted for the National Post – of 1,735 randomly selected residents of Canada aged 18 or older.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.

It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the preceding revolution.

Thus, Republicans railed for 20 years against the New Deal. Yet when they regained the White House in 1953, they kept the New Deal intact.

And when Nixon followed LBJ’s Great Society — liberalism’s second wave — he didn’t repeal it. He actually expanded it. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, gave teeth to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and institutionalized affirmative action — major adornments of contemporary liberalism.

Until Reagan. Ten minutes into his presidency, Reagan declared that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Having thus rhetorically rejected the very premise of the New Deal/Great Society, he set about attacking its foundations — with radical tax reduction, major deregulation, a frontal challenge to unionism (breaking the air traffic controllers for striking illegally) and an (only partially successful) attempt at restraining government growth.

Reaganism’s ascendancy was confirmed when the other guys came to power and their leader, Bill Clinton, declared (in his 1996 State of the Union address) that “the era of big government is over” — and then abolished welfare, the centerpiece “relief” program of modern liberalism.

In Britain, the same phenomenon: Tony Blair did to Thatcherism what Clinton did to Reaganism. He made it the norm.

Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congress he declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.

Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced democracy — control pricing and production and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.

And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the nationalization of health care. His $830-billion stimulus, by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars on favored companies and industries in a naked display of industrial policy.

And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new HHS regulation does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into non-competitiveness.

Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting.

An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state.

If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.

Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.

Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of American social contract.

Brooklyn, N.Y. — On June 6, Paul Ryan had a visitor in his House of Representatives’ office in Washington, D.C. Mr. Ryan was not yet the vice-presidential nominee, but was already a rising star in the Republican Party and well known in America’s capital as author of the fiscally conservative “Ryan Budget.”

Ezra Friedlander knew he had the ear of somebody important. As a non-partisan political consultant and Orthodox Jew, he wanted the Wisconsin politician to know not everyone who accepts entitlements are moochers or “professional schnorrers,” as he put it in Yiddish during an interview at his Brooklyn brownstone. Some Orthodox Jews, he explained, rely on food stamps because they spend thousands of dollars sending their five, six or seven children to religious schools rather than taxpayer-funded ones.

But Mr. Ryan would have known he had the ear of somebody important, too. Mr. Friedlander is a community leader in New York’s Borough Park, home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish populations outside Israel. And that socially conservative sect of the Jewish population, Republican strategists believe, marks the party’s best chance at making inroads into a demographic that overwhelmingly votes for — and financially supports — the Democrat Party.

“Nobody, not even Republican partisans like myself, thinks the Jewish vote is going to a majority for the Republican candidate in the near future,” said Tevi Troy, a Mitt Romney advisor who helped George W. Bush get elected in 2004 with the largest margin of Jewish voters since 1988.

“But could it move? Yes.

Absolutely.”

Jews made up just 2% of voters in 2008 and only a small percentage of them, somewhere around 5%, are persuadable. But in a competition that could end in an electoral-college tie, their support in prize battlegrounds could prove invaluable.

And the stars could be aligned for a Republican pick-up this time around: President Barack Obama failed to visit Israel on his 2009 Middle East tour and, in the eyes of some, snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York this fall; the Democrat Party removed Jerusalem as the Israeli capital from its platform and only reinstated it at their convention after an oral vote heavy on “boos;” the president has refused to draw a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear program and, of course, the economy tanked.

In 2008, there was only Rabbis for Obama. Today there is Rabbis for Romney, too.

This is not the Democrat Party of old

“This is not the Democrat Party of old,” said Rabbi Bernhard Rosenberg, who launched Rabbis for Romney this fall to counter the perception all Jews support Democrats.

“The question is, when you’re voting Democrat, are you voting for the Jews or against the Jews? For Israel or against Israel?”

Rabbi Rosenberg’s support for the Republican candidate runs far deeper, though, than the matter of Israel. For many Jewish voters, Israel is actually low on the radar because they know it is U.S. policy to ally strongly with the country, no matter who is in office.

As elsewhere, then, the economy is top of mind for voters here in Borough Park on this rainy afternoon, as observant Jews — in their skirts and long coats, curls and beards — hurried to escape the pour.

A bank on 13th Avenue, surrounded by delis and bakeries, was bustling with soaked voters. And while most said they will support Mr. Romney, there were some undecided voters, too.

Matt Swerdloff, chief marketing officer of a tech start-up, said he will vote for Mr. Romney because he is more concerned than ever about tax rates. And Alex Mayer, a 34-year-old lifelong Borough Park resident, said he is leaning toward Mr. Romney but remains unconvinced.

The wiggle room in Mr. Mayer’s mind is the kind of opening eyed by the Republicans in states like Florida. That battleground is worth 29 electoral votes and could well tip the scales, as it did in 2000 when Mr. Bush won by a margin of 537 votes.

Brian Harkin for National PostGabriella Friedlander, left, and her husband, Ezra Friedlander, stand outside of their home in the Borough Park neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY on Oct. 19, 2012.

Unprecedented millions, donated largely by Sheldon Adelson to the Republican Jewish Coalition, have been pumped into the Sunshine State for television ads centring on Israel and billboards that say, “OBAMA … OY VEY! Had Enough?” and “Friends Don’t Let Friends Get Nuked. STOP OBAMA.” The coalition is also reportedly handing out iPhones to attract volunteers.

“No one knows what the impact of those millions of dollars will be,” said Mik Moore, co-founder of the Jewish Council for Education & Research, a pro-Obama Super PAC.

“I think they’re having some success with it.”

Chaskel Bennett, a Borough Park community activist who will vote for Mr. Romney but who supported president Bill Clinton twice, jokes to his friends in South Florida their ballot is worth 10 times his. He lives, after all, in solidly blue New York.

But to his mind, the state holds symbolic importance. When Bob Turner, a Roman Catholic Republican, beat out his Democrat opponent in one of the most reliably Democrat and heavily Jewish congressional districts in the U.S., some said the win marked a potential sea-change for the presidential election in states like Florida, Ohio and Nevada.

“Our liberal co-religionists breathlessly defend the Bob Turner victory as an exception, but current trends indicate the Jewish community’s move toward conservatism and conservatives,” Mr. Bennett said in an interview at Mr. Friedlander’s dining-room table.

“It may very well be the ‘new norm.’ ”

Mr. Troy said the Romney campaign has been doing Jewish outreach for well over a year, long before the Mormon candidate was even the party’s nominee.

He introduced Mr. Romney on a recent conference call with more than 1,600 Jewish leaders and supporters, and has personally appeared at Romney events in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Weather permitting, he will campaign again in this crucial final week.

Mr. Troy wants to help Mr. Romney capture 30% of the Jewish vote, a feat not achieved by a Republican in more than two decades.

The party gleaned only 10% of the vote during the terms of Democrats Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, who recognized the state of Israel after the Second World War. By the 1980s, support for the Republican Party reached into the 30% range, with Ronald Reagan earning a record 39% support.

But in 1992 under Bush Sr., the Jewish Republican vote collapsed “like air coming out of a tire,” Mr. Troy said, especially after a Bush official was caught uttering “f— the Jews, they didn’t vote for us anyway.”

I think those who vote in a die-hard way — always Democrat — have to look at themselves in the mirror

“Yes, Jewish people have historically voted Democrat, and I come up against this every single day,” said Mr. Bennett who, like Mr. Friedlander, describes himself as non-partisan and has voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past.

“I think those who vote in a die-hard way — always Democrat — have to look at themselves in the mirror and say, ‘One second. Should my vote be an automatic?’ ”

Mr. Moore said that while he is paying close attention to the effort aimed at sapping some of the 78% support the president got in 2008, he would be far more concerned if the Republican Party eased up on social issues, where the majority of the Jewish population aligns with the Democrats.

“The party has pushed to the right, so an overwhelming majority of Jewish voters just can’t support [Mr. Romney],” he said.

That rings true to Ivan Rubin, a secular Jew who lives in New York. The retired lawyer said he was so disappointed in the president’s first term he considered staying home on Election Day. But when he heard the social values championed during the Republican primaries, he realized the importance of his ballot and will vote Obama.

Even Gabriella Friedlander, Mr. Friedlander’s conservative wife, takes issue with the Republican Party when it comes to abortion. She is highly religious and opposes abortion, but she is downright offended by Republican men who want to control a woman’s body.

Mr. Moore, the Jewish Super PAC co-founder, said he will do everything he can to stave off Republican inroads into the small slice of the Jewish community that remains persuadable.

“If, despite [Obama’s perceived weakness on Israel] and all the money being put in by Adelson, the Republicans are unable to make any real progress in wooing Jewish votes, you kind of feel like they should give up,” he said.

But in this final push toward Election Day, with Mr. Romney leading by just a single point in Florida, Mr. Troy and the ramped-up Republican machine will do anything but.

Last week, letters editor Paul Russell asked readers: “Romney or Obama — which U.S. presidential candidate would be better for Canada? Not surprisingly, the Republican candidate won by a landslide. More responses can be found at fullcomment.com.

Obama, because he ‘gets’ Canada

— Mitt Romney’s contempt for almost half the U.S. population tells us what he would think of Canada’s health-care system, CBC, equalization payments, constitutional notwithstanding clause, toleration of Quebec separatists and the Grey Cup as a cultural event, to name only a few of our distinct traditions. Barack Obama, in spite of his flaws, would be more sympathetic to Canada’s way of doing things that Mr. Romney would see as un-American. William Bedford, Toronto.

— Barack Obama is more palatable. Handed Republican lemons, he couldn’t make lemonade fast enough to satisfy an obstructionist Republican Congress. They’d rather trash America than compromise for the national good. Mitt Romney would continue failed Republican policies like corporate deregulation, tax cuts for the rich who obviously failed to provide jobs and new expensive wars. Years will pass before either gets the U.S. economy rolling. Canada’s economy is on its own. Doug Haslam, Stratford, Ont.

— No contest. Barack Obama of course. Because he wouldn’t do away with Big Bird. Alex Taylor, Toronto.

— Mitt Romney comes not with just Mitt Romney but a whole grocery bag full of others already seen too many times: people who tolerated/promoted/sustained American internal financial irresponsibility and uncertainty. Canada is moving in new directions, has a strong, directed international trade and new policy confidence. None of this needs to be threatened when it could be harmed, even innocently, by any misstepping new regime south of the 49 parallel. Sorry, Mitt (but best wishes). Blair Mitchell, Halifax.

— Considering the only difference between them is gay marriage and abortion, I’d probably pick Barack Obama, who lines up with Canada’s own opinions on those issues but is too far on the right of us on most other issues. Alex Sobolewski, Hamilton, Ont.

We would vote for Mitt — he can do the math

— If Mitt Romney is elected, the Keystone Pipeline will be built, resulting in billions of revenue for Canada if Mitt Romney is elected president. If Barack Obama is re-elected, there will be no pipeline and punitive tariffs. This is a no brainer. Steve Flanagan, Ottawa.

— I cannot think of an instance in which Barack Obama might be better for Canada, or any other country in the free world. He might be a friend if we instilled a leftist leader, but thankfully we have a leader who is both morally and practically superior. Mitt Romney has some understanding of Canada and will be a friend, while first and foremost looking out for American interests, which is understandable. Barry Lubotta, Toronto.

— Barack Obama has been a disaster for the U.S. economy. Solving the debt crisis and creating jobs should have been his priority for the first two years. Instead he spent all of his political credits trying to pass a very flawed health plan which even his own party does not totally support. Canada is dependent upon a strong U.S. economy and Mitt Romney has the experience to challenge the debt and job crisis. Graham Brown, Toronto.

— Mitt Romney is better for Canadians than the incumbent. He will export our oil via the Keystone XL Pipeline. And recall former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s comment about continuing to provide free enterprise health care so Canadians have a place to go when they need to skip their own long wait times.

Bruce Gilboord, Toronto.

— This is a difficult choice. Would I rather have Barack Obama who helps our enemies in the Middle East and hinders and disses our friends in that area, or have Mitt Romney, who says he will support our friends and protect us from our enemies. A tough question. Jonathan Usher, Toronto.

— Canada’s left should be wary of Obama’s promise of “fundamentally transforming” the U.S. An America bankrupted under progressivism would reflect terribly on their cause, and “The Great Satan” on its knees cannot be scapegoat for the world’s woes. To the left’s eternal discredit, the consequences would be laid bare of the president’s acceptance of Islamist factions such as Muslim Brotherhood. Left and right should both hope for a Mitt Romney win. Stuart Laughton, Burlington, Ont.

— As Conrad Black said on the Lang & O’Leary Exchange, the U.S. federal government does not currently have a real plan to deal with its debt. Mitt Romney has enough on the ball to stop digging, when in a hole, unlike Barack Obama. Mr. Romney will be better for Canada, because the balance sheet will improve. David W. Lincoln, Edmonton.

— Mitt Romney would be the best bet for the future health of Canada. As my father was fond of saying: “When the U.S. sneezes, Canada catches cold.” I think Mitt Romney’s plan to steer the U.S. economy back to health is the better path than Barack Obama’s “trickle-down government” approach. Wade Pearson, Calgary.

— Barack Obama has increased the U.S. debt to $16-trillion. In so doing, he has destroyed America as a world leader. He has lowered the standard of living in the U.S. increased the number of homeless and destroyed an economy that was the envy of the world. At least with Mitt Romney, the U.S. has a slight chance. Ron Fawcett, Toronto.

— Mitt Romney understands Canada better than Barack Obama. He grew up in Michigan, speaks French and summers in Grand Bend, Ont. He can use his skills as a successful investor to revitalize the U.S. economy and unblock Congress. Mr. Obama hurt Canada by stopping Keystone and with his Buy America Act. Victor Koby, Orillia, Ont.

— The Obama administration has proven, again, that socialism does not work. The sooner the U.S. gets back to business with a leadership that can do the math, the better. As an escapee from failed socialism in Europe and a recent witness to similar demise in Ontario, the prospect of another Obama term is frightening. Russell Thompson, Victoria.

— Mitt Romney has a better grasp of foreign policy than Barack Obama. Through his work with Bain Capital, he is an expert at creating jobs. Mr. Obama keeps printing money, and his lack of interest in national intelligence briefings is terrifying. Obama’s attendance at a fundraiser in Las Vegas after the murder of the Libyan ambassador shows his true priorities. D. Ouellet, Woodbridge, Ont.

— Even though Canada is moving toward diversification with our exports, the vast majority of our trade will be with the U.S. for some time to come. The debates are exposing the Romney/Ryan ticket as competent stewards of the economy and foreign policy. A robust economy is the best social program. Craig Noren, Fort Langley, B.C.

— Canada’s economic and security needs would be better served by Mitt Romney. On the domestic front, Obama has stalled passage of the Keystone pipeline, a project of vital national interest which would create thousands of Canadian jobs. A Romney presidency will ensure completion of the pipeline. On the international stage, he will work with Israel to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, ensuring the security of the world. David Gilmour, Vancouver.

— The U.S. is Canada’s biggest trading partner. We don’t want to trade with a bankrupt country that adopts Shariah law, which is what we’ll get with Obama. Besides, Mitt Romney may turn out to become the most effective president since Roosevelt, which will be good for the U.S. and for the rest of the world.

Andy Halmay, Toronto.

— The Republican Party has historically been more open to trade with Canada than have the Democrats. I know that many Canadians identify with the big-government mentality of the Democrats, and think universal health care in the U.S. is long overdue, but there is a real risk that Barack Obama’s run-away spending will lead to rampant inflation and economic disaster. L. Russell, Ottawa.

— The day after Barack Obama’s inauguration, his first call should have been to his neighbour, Canada. It wasn’t. Mr. Obama has not kept the majority of his promises. He thinks he is god. He has deserted his allies. He asked the media not to use the term “Muslim terrorists.” His speech in Cairo encouraged the Palestinians to discontinue the peace talks. Rabbi David Spiro, Toronto.

— Mitt Romney has previous business and governmental leadership experience; he can work with others, Barack Obama obviously cannot. Mr. Romney has demonstrated an ability to think beyond “borough-issues.” He is not beholden to automobile unions, nor Hollywood and environmental “experts.” He understands that the West needs a strong leader, one who does not shove his friends under the bus, nor apologize for supposed U.S. (and Western) failings. Mac Savage, Surrey, B.C.

— Since America under Barack Obama is fast accelerating to moral and fiscal bankruptcy, the election of Mitt Romney is the only possible remedy. And since what is good for America is (generally) good for Canada, Mr. Romney is again the answer. Lars Troide, Apple Hill, Ont.

— Mitt Romney, like Stephen Harper, is no wimp. And Mr. Romney mentioned Canada by name in the previous debate. How lovely. Perhaps with Mr. Romney at the helm, Canada might rid itself of the strangulation of excessive political correctness and find its soul again. Jean Parkin, Nanaimo, B.C.

— On the economic front, Mitt Romney’s fast approval of the Xl Pipeline would be good news for the oil sands. National defence may be a toss-up but I lean toward Mr. Romney for his hawkish outlook and the possibility that he may attempt to form a closer bond with Stephen Harper than Barack Obama has. Robert McLachlan, St. Catharines, Ont.

— From our front row seat we have witnessed the United States being mesmerized by a glib, fast-talking, incompetent salesman. How can we consider, for even a moment, any fleeting benefit Canada might gain from such a President when the whole world is counting on this election to free America from the tyranny of an administration that is willing to give away everything to stay in office. Betty L. Reade, Oakville, Ont.

— Mitt Romney’s support of the Keystone pipeline is good for them and good for us. Second, he seems like the man who would at least try to stop this death spiral towards ever increasing debt. Third, given his success as a governor and a businessman, he has proven he can co-operate, and persuade people to compromise. Thus, he could get the House and Senate to work with him. When the U.S. prospers, we do too. Perry Miller, Innisfail, Alta.

— Mitt Romney by a long shot. His Mormon morals are on a much higher plane than those of the half-baked Christian opponent. I would hope that Mr. Romney would immediately stop funding abortions in other countries, as George Bush did. And that he would even stop the funding of U.S. abortions. God would be pleased if we Canadians were to follow this good example. John Stefan Obeda, London, Ont.

— During the debate, Mitt Romney revealed his libertarian side; he referred to “individuals pursuing their dreams.” He understands that millions of people, each deciding how best to spend thousands, is far better than one bureaucrat deciding how to spend billions. Barack Obama is advocating socialism. He pays lip service to fairness and equality, but neglects to mention who decides when things are “fair” and “equal.” Bob Crooks, Lumsden, Sask.

— We have had many versions of the interventionist, central-planning Obama-type guru in Canada. The “I know better than the market how to run an economy type prime minister. As for a Romney in Canada, I would suggest that Harper/Romney are very much ideological twins. Both are pro-market, pro-Israel and anti-everything else. Honestly Monty, how about a look behind door number three? Niels Schonberg, Oshawa, Ont.

— Any presidential candidate that promises to keep his bloody hands off Canada is better for Canada. Bush slapped us with passports. Obama hit us with “Buy America” bologna. The oil pipeline’s a political football. Even our health-care system gets kicked around when it’s convenient. And all it gets them is the 2012 election. James Homuth, Ottawa.

— Ask not what their country can do for us. Time for us to act the giants we are, grasshoppers no longer. Canada — it’s our century to shine. Moishe (Thomas) Goldstein, Toronto.

— It’s hard to say. Mitt Romney supports Israel like the Harper government but Barack Obama supports abortion and same-sex marriage. I personally oppose the blind allegiance which both governments give to Israel and their immorality in supporting homosexuality and abortion. So neither candidate is going to make a significant difference to the well-being of Canada. John Clubine, Toronto.

— Who cares? So sick of ad nauseum American election news. George Smith, Red Deer, Atla.

Due to space limitations, the following responses were not printed in Monday’s paper.

— @alexcerne Obama or Romney? The best pick for Canada and the US is clear: none of the above.

— @BrianFehst Romney’s flexibility on issues such as abortion may actually appeal to the moderate majority as opposed to his rigid VP Ryan.

— The West faces two foreign existential threats, Islamo-Imperialism/global Sharia and leftist statism. Both ultimately deny democracy and freedom. Over 4 years, Obama has demonstrated either an inability to identify these threats or effectively counter them. Sanctions increased Iranian citizens’ suffering while megalomaniacal nuclear ambitions remain undeterred. Bin Laden, not Al Quieda was eliminated. Attacking challengers cannot be allowed to divert attention from Obama’s record of ineptitude. No, he couldn’t and didn’t. Romney’s the man!
David Nussbaum, Thornhill, Ont

— Unfortunately, in the short term neither candidate would be better for Canada. The financial debacle Americans have allowed their politicians from both parties to lead them into is too severe to rectify in one presidential term. Long term, Mitt Romney would be better, but only marginally. Ernie Lehmann, Innisfil, Ont

— Forget about Canada, Obama would serve no free and democratic country well. All of his confusing missteps make perfect sense when one understands his anti-colonial motivations. From his extremist pals and mentors (Davis, Ayers, Wright, Unger, Said) to his confusing Middle East support (undermine Egypt and Libya while supporting Iran and Syria) Obama is clearly undermining America. 2016 Obama’s America by Dinesh D’souza is a must see for every free person on this planet. Francis J. Provost, Calgary.

— Since the United States is Canada’s largest trading partner and the volume of this trade is dependent on how well the US economy performs then it would seem to be reasonable to accept the premise that the President that would be best for Canada would be the President with the policies that would improve the US economy. This President I believe would by Mr. Romney Jim Gehl. Calgary.

— Obama -If we desire and feel the need of a leader whose background is so fraught with lies and connections with Marxists, Communists and radical Socialists [his self appointed advisors ], his terrorist friend who encouraged him to run for president,a man who could never be hired by the FBI or any other security agency because of this background yet because of his “charisma” and media protection is now president of the most powerful nation on earth. Helen Nuss

— Domestically, Canada will get side-swiped by continuing US monetary woes. BHObama did everything possible to ensure a poor financial situation became total economic devastation in large swathes of the US. On foreign policy, democratic US allies across the world shudder at another 4 years of back-stabbing betrayal by the current administration. Iran will get nuclear weapon capability with BHObama in office. For the sake of Canada and the world, Romney to the Rescue. Michael N. W. Baigel, Toronto.

— The question is somewhat parochial, in that what is best for the world is what is best for Canada. The party that benefits women most will have spillover benefit for more than half of Canadians, the party that slows the ravaging of the environment will also benefit Canadians, since we are not anaerobes and we depend on this planets living things even more than on oil and minerals, Joe Oliver and Peter Kent notwithstanding. The party less likely to trigger a thermonuclear exchange in the high density Middle East, whether accidental or intentional, will also benefit Canada most. Obama/ Biden have far more maturity than the Ayn Rand acolyte Paul Ryan and his boss, chameleon Mitt Romney. The latter will build their pipeline and step up our oil sands production, but guess which taxpayers will be left cleaning up the eventual toxic mess? Ron Charach, Toronto

— The better candidate would be he who will let people pass freely across the U.S. border. But neither of the candidates has discussed this. Alex Sotto, Montreal.

— So I’ve been told that Democratic Party presidents are generally bad for our economy but I fail to see what the American’s electing a brainwashed puppet would do for our economy?! But I guess we have a puppet running our country so??? Go Obama!!! Let’s see if another term will allow him to clean up Bush’s mess. Neil Svendsen

— Canada is currently in good financial shape. Mitt romney iS clearly the better candidate, some who will help grow the economy, not just talk about it. A robust Canadian economy requires a healthy U.S. economy. The candidate that would be better for Canada is the one more likely to boost U.S. economic growth and cut the ruinous federal government deficit. Barack Obama may be more inspiring, but Mitt Romney is the better CEO that the U.S. needs to jump-start the economy and impose some fiscal discipline. David Cottle, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.

— It’s Romney by a yard. I would never say that what’s good for the U.S is always good for Canada but on average it is. I’m skeptical of U.S. politics but even the late Roman Empire had some good emperors. If Romney can’t stabilize the Empire then “Apres Romney le deluge.” John Purdy, Kirkland, Que.

— Barack Obama, with his ultra-loose monetary policy, interest rate manipulation and massive public sector spending increases, clearly has no interest in fixing America’s underlying problems; he worries only about keeping his base well fed. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has a history of taking over bankrupt, completely mismanaged entities and taking whatever action is necessary to fix them, without regard to his own short-term popularity. No contest, really. Ian Tribes, Vernon, B.C.

— No contest! Romney would be better for us and the U.S. He has promised to approve the Keystone pipeline, a boon to both of our economies. The only thing Barack Obama can offer Canada is hope to liberals lusting for Justin. Other Canadians have learned from their once starry-eyed neighbours that qualifications, knowledge and experience trump a great smile, vacuity and rock-star celebrity. Anne Bochen, Toronto.

— I think Barack Obama is great for Canada. Another four years of his misguided fumbling and the Detroit river will become the Rio Grande of the north, with columns the U.S. wealthy streaming across it to escape to economic freedom. Rick Fuschi, Windsor, Ont.

— Mr. Romney’s pro-growth, pro-business policies would be a boon for Canada, and it is likely he would find a kindred spirit in Mr. Harper. President Obama has consistently thwarted policy which would restore vitality to the private sector, and despite his lackluster performance at the podium versus Mr. Romney a week ago, he has for four years proven to be the Oval Office master debater. Milan Mijatovic, Windsor, Ont

PHILADELPHIA — A 16-year-old high school sophomore who says she was ridiculed by her geometry teacher for wearing a Mitt Romney T-shirt returned to school Tuesday following a rally by cheering supporters. The teacher has also written a letter of apology that was read aloud to students.

Samantha Pawlucy hadn’t been back to Charles Carroll High School in the city’s Port Richmond section since last week. That’s when she and her family say she was mocked by her teacher for wearing the shirt supporting the Republican presidential candidate. She said the teacher questioned why she was wearing the shirt and called others in to the room to laugh at her.

Pawlucy, whose family had expressed concern for her safety, returned Tuesday after a rally that featured supporters singing the national anthem and reading the First Amendment — as well as shouts of supporters calling “Go, Sam!” and “You’re great, Sam!”

Related

The school’s principal read students the letter of apology from geometry teacher Lynette Gaymon on Tuesday.

“I’m very sorry for all the chaos and negative attention that has surrounded the school in the past couple of weeks,” she wrote. “What I meant as a light and humorous remark during class has developed into a huge conflict between students, faculty, parents and neighbors. My words were never meant to belittle Ms. Pawlucy, or cause any harm, and I truly regret that we have come to this point.”

Pawlucy wore the pink “Romney/Ryan” shirt to “dress-down” day on Sept. 28. She said that during class, Gaymon pointed out the shirt, questioned why she was wearing it and told her to leave the classroom. Gaymon, Pawlucy said, said it was a “Democratic” school and compared it to wearing a “KKK” shirt.

Her father, Richard Pawlucy, said the family met with Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter on Sunday night to discuss a resolution. The teacher has apologized and the district’s superintendent William Hite Jr. has called the ordeal a “teachable moment.”

Hite has said he would work with Nutter and the teacher’s union to move “towards a conversation that brings together diverse beliefs, inspires understanding, and heals.”

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/09/u-s-student-returns-to-school-after-teacher-mocked-her-mitt-romney-t-shirt/feed/1stdA 16-year-old high school sophomore who says she was ridiculed by her geometry teacher for wearing a Mitt Romney T-shirt (not pictured) returned to school Tuesday following a rally by cheering supporters.Today’s letters: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romneyhttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/27/todays-letters-barack-obama-vs-mitt-romney/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/27/todays-letters-barack-obama-vs-mitt-romney/#commentsThu, 27 Sep 2012 10:00:30 +0000http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/?p=92173

When will Obama get the message?

Re: How The GOP Forgot The Caring Half Of Conservatism, David Brooks, Sept. 26.
If “conservatism has lost the balance between economics and traditional conservatism” as David Brooks suggests, then liberalism has rejected the traditional symbiotic relationship between national fiscal/monetary integrity and the natural right of the so-called “foolish” individual to pursue his self-interest, relatively unimpeded, in the free market open economy.
David Brooks would have the reader believe he has all along been a “traditional conservative, intellectual heir to Edmund Burke” et al. Assuming this mantle of deception, he proceeds to twist, distort and appropriate the virtues and aspirations of social conservatives, only to reveal what he authentically is : a dirigiste redistributionist. Like Mr. Obama, he cares not a wit for where the funding must come from for his statist programs.
It will certainly not come from Mitt Romney’s infamous 47%, nor can it continue to be derived from continuous borrowing against the future. Mr. Brooks seeks for the social contract to be bolstered by the “government provid[ing] a subtle hand.” As noted by other columnists, that hand is now a “visible hand,” which is indispensable for big government to plan, manage and regulate society. A. John Boehmer, Gatineau, Que.

Re: Obama Dials Up Rhetoric At The UN, Sept. 26.
President Barack Obama continues to practise Neville Chamberlain-style leadership, despite growing anti-American demonstrations in the Middle East and the recent terrorist attack that killed ambassador Chris Stevens and three colleagues. During Tueseday’s speech at the UN, Mr. Obama apologized to Muslims for the third rate anti-Islam video. So much for him protecting freedom of expression.
He just does not seem to understand that terrorist groups, and Iran, will only respect tough action, not idle rhetoric. Mr. Obama continues to send mixed messages, both to those in the Middle East who hate America as well as his allies. Larry Comeau, Ottawa.

Re: Obama, Romney Spar Over Netanyahu Snub, Sept. 24.
Barack Obama is quoted as saying that Israel is “one of our closest allies in the region.” I know there are many countries there that are happy to take American money, but can you name a second ally? Paul Rotenberg, Toronto.

Romney is the wrong man for the job

Re: Ring-Side Seat For A Disaster, Conrad Black, Sept. 22.
It is strange that Canada’s greatest wordsmith can downplay the profound significance of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression by cloaking it in a 76-word sentence, without calling it what it truly was: an American financial Armageddon which could have led to a world financial collapse. That was only averted by the actions of a fledgling, courageous president, Barack Obama, who bailed out and propped up the failing institutions.
Mr. Black also failed to include the fact that 50% of the deficit comes from the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, as well as from Mr. Bush’s two unfunded wars.
Just as the recovery from the Great Depression took time to amend, so, too, will the financial mess this president inherited. Give me Barack Obama at the American helm for another term. His intellect, his world view and his thoughtful problem solving approach all clearly outshine Mitt Romney’s dullness, his disastrous bumbling and his dearth of ideas. Eleanor Huber, London, Ont.

What grinds your gears

In 75 words or fewer, tell us what really bothers you. Deadline is Friday at 2 p.m. Email responses to letters@nationalpost.com

China should keep its hand off our resources

Re: Massive Potential In China Deal, John Ivison, Sept, 25.
John Ivison is correct to conclude that politics and popular opinion shouldn’t weigh in on a decisions relating to foreign investment. Nevertheless, he seems to be missing the central problem with the CNOOC-Nexen deal — reciprocity.
Free markets are fundamental to economic growth, but you can’t have participants like China picking and choosing when and how they want to act this way for their sole benefit.
Until China accepts Canadian foreign investment in a more substantial way than “joint ventures” and other minimal partnerships, the federal government can’t approve this deal. Regardless of the share premiums that China is willing to pay to lubricate this transaction, the long-term economic good of the country and our forays into global markets needs to be considered. Jason Gray, Toronto.

John Ivison ignores the nature of the Chinese regime and its aims. China’s military and industrial and economic strength is fuelled largely by oil. It would be the greatest folly to allow China access to our oil.
There is, however, one aspect of this issue which has, to my knowledge, not been discussed. All I have read all about the takeover of our oil companies by foreign interests assumes that the purchase of an oil company automatically gives ownership of the resources to the new owner.
It is not so straightforward, as yesterday’s editorial, “Trade with caution,” warned.
Our constitution says in part that each province “may exclusively make laws in relation to (a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province; (b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable resources natural resources(.)
This question cries out for decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.Jack E.G. Dixon, Victoria.

One point seems to be missing in the discussions regarding China’s CNOOC’s bid to buy Nexen. The purchase would not be a foreign direct investment in Canada, or any other kind of investment in Canada. The $15-billion would instead go to the existing shareholders and CNOOC would be the new owner. It is an investment for CNOOC, not for Canada.
What the company will do after that is unknown, but you can be sure it will be to their advantage, not necessarily to ours. How helpful has Vale’s takeover of Inco been? Takeovers of existing natural resources companies should be banned, plain and simple.
As for a foreign government owning our resources, why are we even discussing it? Tony Fricke, Calgary.

Words can project unfounded fear

Re: Triple-Guessing Tehran, George Jonas, Sept. 26.
When any writer tries to pass off rebuttable presumptions as fact, as George Jonas has, then he is stating cant, disguised as sophistry and masquerading as analysis.
The deliberate use of negatively emotive descriptions like “the fiercely mustachioed General Mohammad Ali Jafari,” “non-nuclear fanatics” and “the ayatollahs’ nukes” is only to set the stage for Mr. Jonas’ illogical flights of fancy. They are based upon the assumption that bombast about “annihilating the Jewish state” needs to be taken any more seriously than U.S. president George W. Bush’s threat to Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf that the U.S. would “bomb Pakistan back to the stone age.”
Misusing column space to project a dangerous view justifying, nay, advocating, the use of extreme force that could influence public view toward considering such an unlawful act is reckless. While informed appraisals are helpful, merely foisting one’s unfounded fears onto others is best avoided. I.R. Sheikh, Toronto.

Let the kids play — and win

Re: Redefining Competition, Sept. 22.
Walking by the pristine and empty playing fields near my home on another flawless fall Sunday after reading Kathryn Blaze Carlson’s thoughtful take on competition-free, youth athletic programs, left me wondering how offside Canadian sports bureaucrats are aiming with there fungible, socially-engineered, competition-free sports initiative. They are not just missing the net. They are scoring an own goal.
If the recent results at the Olympics are any measure, Canadian athlete’s competitive resolve is strong. Just watch Sidney Crosby handle a puck or Rosannagh MacLennan’s routine on a trampoline and you can clearly see that Canada can develop athletes with phenomenal skills.
Certainly the government should worry about the drop-out rate of sport participation in this country. But, no amount of government money or good intentions will stop the world-wide sea change for the majority of the populace to drop recreational activities and spend huge amounts of leisure activity in artificial reality. No amount of money is going to motivate children to, well, go outside and play.
Still, by messing with those wishing to compete — encouraging humans to go against their very natural instincts — we will encourage more kids to pull out their music players and tune out.
As for competitive skills development; it is not that complicated. I remember videos of a guy named Wayne Gretzky, skating around and around in his backyard as a kid with no scoreboard in sight. I think he did pretty well in his career in sports, no? Brian Brennan, Calgary.

A brave cover story by the National Post, but Kathryn Blaze Carlson seems to have conflated two separate ideas. Long-Term Athlete Development is not the proposed remedy (“no winners”) to the overcompetitive culture in North American youth sports. Rather, it is the solution to the increasingly wider gap in skills development in our young athletes who often are exposed at international levels. According to FIFA’s 2006 record of nation-wide participation levels, Canada ranks at #22, ahead of countries like Argentina, Portugal and the Netherlands, yet does not have a consistent pipeline from youth-to-professional grade, often due to lacking basic technical and tactical skills.
The development of fundamental skills runs contrary to Canada’s high-stakes environment where John Savoie’s observation that girls under the age of eight years old were shouting “It’s 1-0! It’s 2-0! We’re winning!” Even more damaging are parents who attempt to continue to normalize the ubiquitous comments that “life is competition,” without thinking of child’s cognitive and socioemotional development.
Canada is one of the world’s leading nations when it comes to progressive methodology, yet is trying to adapt to a historically successful European model. The subtitle of the article should not be “Redefining competition,” but “Rethinking culture.” Roland Mascarenhas, Toronto.

Comparing bad situations

The press is reporting that Justin Trudeau will run for the Liberal leadership. And to think that some people thought the NFL referee situation is a joke. Hank Bangild, Port Colborne, Ont.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/27/todays-letters-barack-obama-vs-mitt-romney/feed/0stdWashington state delegate attends the first day of the Democratic National Convention in CharlotteDear Diary: ‘I have this great idea for my speech. Sitt Romney! He’s a chair, get it?’http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/07/dear-diary-i-have-this-great-idea-for-my-speech-sitt-romney-hes-a-chair-get-it/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/07/dear-diary-i-have-this-great-idea-for-my-speech-sitt-romney-hes-a-chair-get-it/#commentsFri, 07 Sep 2012 23:02:41 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=210552

The National Post re-imagines a week in the life of a newsmaker. Today, Scott Stinson looks at the week through the eyes of U.S. vice president Joe Biden.

Monday
“Jilly,” I said this morning. “Kitten. Dollface. Sweetums. I know it makes you nervous when I start thinking for myself, but this idea I have for my speech will be an absolute cracker.” And it is great. We bring out this big recliner, see, and put it on stage next to the podium, and I start talking to it like it’s Romney! Can’t miss. And it has to be one of those recliners that swivels, so it can move side to side like the way Romney is a great big flip-flopper. Floppy McFlopperson! Oh, it will be great. I’ll starting talking to it, and swiveling it, and then I’ll be all “Why don’t just go [expletive] yourself, Mitt?” No, wait … Sitt! Sitt Romney! He’s a chair, get it? That’ll kill.

Anyway, it was right about this point when Jill slipped out into the hall and whispered “Code Grey” to one of the Secret Service agents. They think I still don’t know what that means, but I totally do: Uncle Joe’s getting a little frisky, time to cool the Silver Fox out. I don’t mind, though. Who wouldn’t like getting his scotch, neat, delivered straight to his chair?

Related

Tuesday
“Michelle,” I said this morning. “You statuesque thing, you. I need you to put in a word with the Big Mon.” She gave me that face like she does. “The what?” she says. “Your husband, sweetie,” I say. That face again. Man, she can be a tough nut. I explain that Jilly doesn’t seem so keen on the whole Sitt Romney gag, which will be great. Smart woman, Michelle says. I got a better idea, I say. I come out in a big robe with a fake beard and a long wig and I do this whole Ten Commandments riff that makes fun of Eastwood. Like how he was Moses in the movie? “Clint Eastwood wasn’t in The Ten Commandments, Joe,” Michelle says. Sure he was, I say. “The Silver Fox knows his picture shows!” She says it was Charlton Heston. Dang it, that sounds right. Sometimes Uncle Joe forgets things.

Wednesday
Finally cornered Barack for a minute this morning. The trick is you gotta hang around outside the Oval Office and pounce when he comes out. I just duck into the restroom in the hallway, pop out and check to see if he’s there, and then back in, and out, and so on. That’s the good thing about being a gray hair: No one says anything if you keep returning to the crapper. Anyway, Barack comes out and I pounce. I start selling him on my Sitt Romney shtick. It swivels, get it?! “I can tell you’re a little nervous about it,” I say. “Come on, now. Don’t get uppity on me.” He gave me that face like he does. “What did you just call me?” he said. “Handsome,” I said. And then he says I should just stick to what the speechwriters give me. Killjoy.

Thursday
Nailed it.

Friday
All the papers this morning had nice things to say about Barack’s speech, but not much mention at all of Uncle Joe. I kept searching, and then eventually Jilly found something from The New York Times. “The vice-president is an expert in the art of overcoming ridicule and using low expectations to his advantage,” she read aloud. “Is that good?” I said. “It sounds good . I think.” She kissed my forehead and made a motion to the Secret Service guy that I totally saw. Ah well, there are worse things than special coffee with breakfast. Still, there’s no doubt about it: Sitt Romney would have killed.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Republican vice presidential contender Paul Ryan acknowledges he urged Missouri Congressman Todd Akin to give up on his Senate bid but has no further plans to speak to him about it now that Akin is staying in the race.

Ryan told reporters aboard his campaign plane Wednesday that he’s proud of his anti-abortion record in the House and has no regrets about sponsoring legislation, with Akin, to permanently prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion except in cases of incest or, quote, “forcible” rape.

Heading into next week’s GOP convention, Republicans are finding themselves confronting controversies over Medicare and abortion — far from the issues they’ve been trying to highlight for months: jobs and the slack economy.

But Republican challenger Mitt Romney and ticket mate Ryan have been unable to hold the focus where they want, try as they might.

It makes me uncomfortable to think that the party bosses are going to dictate who runs, as opposed to the election process

Abortion leaped into prominence when Akin refused to withdraw his candidacy for a Missouri Senate seat over his comments about rape and pregnancy — defying calls to step aside from Romney, Ryan and other party leaders.

“It makes me uncomfortable to think that the party bosses are going to dictate who runs, as opposed to the election process,” Akin told ABC Wednesday.

The flap drew attention to the GOP ticket’s own strong stance against abortion.

The Republican platform committee Tuesday reiterated support for a plank unconditionally opposing abortion, although Romney’s campaign suggests he wouldn’t oppose abortion in cases of rape.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlnJxFa_VRA&w=620&h=349]

Medicare, generally a strong issue for Democrats, has gained new prominence because of Ryan’s efforts as House Budget Committee chairman to overhaul it.

Romney’s broad backing of Ryan’s latest budget plan has handed more ammunition to Democrats. But Romney and Ryan argue Obama’s Medicare reductions — not their proposals — are endangering the government health-care program for seniors.

A new AP-GfK poll shows Obama with a clear edge over Romney on social issues such as abortion, 52% to 35%; and a 48% to 42% lead on handling Medicare.

It also shows Romney holding a slight edge on economic and budget issues. And overall, the poll shows an extremely tight race.

Romney was campaigning Wednesday in Iowa, Ryan in Virginia and North Carolina. Obama was in Nevada, hard hit by the economic slowdown.

Embattled Rep. Todd Akin is insisting he’s in the U.S. Senate race to stay, saying “this is not about my ego” but about the voters of Missouri who chose him as their nominee.

Akin confirmed in a nationally broadcast interview that Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan called him to personally plea that he step aside in the wake of the searing controversy surrounding his comments about abortion.

But Akin says, “It’s not right for party bosses to override” the voters of Missouri. He says he told Ryan that he was thinking things over and wants to “do what’s right.” But he also says he’s not abandoning his race, arguing that “I’m planning to win it.”

Akin acknowledges it was a mistake for him to refer to “legitimate” rapes but says he’s apologized for that and that the voters of Missouri knew they weren’t getting a “perfect” candidate.

Akin says in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that “I’m not apologizing for the fact that I’m pro-life.” He also appeared on NBC’s “Today” show.

Earlier, Akin took his message to conservative talk radio shows, declaring GOP leaders were overreacting by insisting he abandon his quest to unseat Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and to social media with appeals for donations on his Twitter feed claiming “liberal elites” are trying to push him out of the race.

“I misspoke one word in one sentence on one day, and all of a sudden, overnight, everybody decides, ‘Well, Akin can’t possibly win,'” he said on a national radio show hosted by former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. “Well, I don’t agree with that.”

Akin predicted he would bounce back from the political crisis threatening his campaign, including a call from presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney to leave the race, and capture a seat that is pivotal to Republican hopes of regaining control of the Senate.

But his bid faces tall obstacles — chief among them a lack of money and party support.

In a potential sign of his strategy, Akin appealed Tuesday to Christian evangelicals, anti-abortion activists and anti-establishment Republicans. He said he remains the best messenger to highlight respect for life and liberty that he contends are crumbling under the policies of President Barack Obama.

In addition, he solicited donations on his website and twitter account late Tuesday claiming in several messages that it was the “liberal elite,” not establishment Republicans, trying to push him out of the race.

If he stays on the ballot, Akin will have to rebuild without any money from the national party and with new misgivings among rank-and-file Republican voters who just two weeks ago propelled him to a comfortable victory in a hotly contested three-way primary.

“I’m in this race for the long haul, and we’re going to win it,” he told radio host Dana Loesch in St. Louis.

Win McNamee/Getty ImagesFormer Arkansas governor and current radio show host Mike Huckabee.

Akin appealed to evangelicals directly during his interview with Huckabee, making allusions to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and focusing on the idea he had only misplaced a single word during a Sunday interview with St. Louis television station KTVI.

But Akin has been roundly criticized both for using the words “legitimate rape” and saying a woman’s body has the ability to prevent conception after such an attack.

Hours earlier, Akin posted an online video in which he apologized again for his remarks. Campaign spokesman Ryan Hite said the apology was intended to cover the reference to “legitimate rape” and Akin’s assertion that rape victims have a natural defense against pregnancy. The video will run as a 30-second ad on TV stations statewide for several days, Hite said.

Tuesday was the final day in which Akin could withdraw from the race without a court order. As the 5 p.m. deadline to withdraw neared, Republican leaders intensified their pressure on Akin to exit.

Sen. Roy Blunt issued a joint statement Tuesday with all four of Missouri’s living former Republican senators — John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, Jim Talent and John Danforth — saying “it serves the national interest” for Akin to step aside.

Pointing to the group, Romney said the congressman should “accept their counsel.”

A Romney aide said the candidate had been inclined to let Akin make the decision on his own. But after the Missouri lawmakers called for Akin to go, Romney wanted to make his position clear, said the aide, who requested anonymity because the aide was not authorized to publicly discuss Romney’s thinking.

Akin provoked the political uproar when he was asked in the KTVI interview whether his general opposition to abortion extends to women who have been raped.

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said.

It’s not clear if Akin’s campaign will have the financial support to wage a prolonged advertising battle against McCaskill in the expensive St. Louis and Kansas City markets and the Republican-rich area of southwest Missouri.

The campaign arm of the Senate Republicans has already withdrawn $5-million in advertising planned for the Missouri race. The Karl Rove-backed Crossroads organization pulled its ads too. A fundraiser planned in Washington for next month was called off after all of the dozen GOP senators who had agreed to participate pulled out.

Crossroads President and CEO Steven Law suggested Tuesday that Akin was potentially helping Democrats retain their Senate majority by remaining in the race.

“The stakes in this election are far bigger than any one individual,” said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. By staying in the race, Akin “is putting at great risk many of the issues that he and others in the Republican Party are fighting for.”

Without that financial backing, Akin will need the support of social conservatives, who have formed his political base through a 12-year congressional career.

Noreen McCann, who lives in the same suburban St. Louis area as Akin, said Tuesday that his rape comment hasn’t weakened her support for him. McCann expressed frustration that Akin was being publicly flayed for his ill-chosen words while other Democrats — specifically President Bill Clinton — have survived scandals that included accusations of sexual impropriety and lies.

Akin “is a man of principle. I trust and respect his integrity and his commitment to defending American values,” said McCann, who had passed out Akin fliers on primary election day. “I think he wants to defend all innocent human life. If he misspoke, or it was in the wrong context, that is not a major problem for me.”

But other Missouri Republicans are second-guessing their support for Akin.

Steven and Carolyn Sipes, a pair of retired public school teachers who are GOP committee members in southwest Missouri’s Christian County, both voted for Akin in the primary. Carolyn is now doing some soul-searching prayer about whether Akin remains the best choice. Her husband believes Republicans would have a better shot of unseating McCaskill without Akin.

“If he decides to stay in, I’ll back him to the hilt,” Steven Sipes said. But “I think it would be better probably if he did drop out at this point. He’s getting a lot of negative publicity.”

Akin’s campaign released an open letter Tuesday from Jack Willke, former president of the U.S. National Right to Life Committee, stating he was “outraged at how quickly Republican leaders have deserted” Akin.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/22/todd-akin-defies-calls-from-mitt-romney-paul-ryan-to-quit-race-as-gop-pulls-5m-in-ad-funds/feed/5stdTodd Akin, centre, has ignored calls from both Paul Ryan, left, and Mitt Romney to withdraw from his senatorial race over controversial remarks regarding rape and abortion.Former Arkansas governor and current radio show host Mike Huckabee.Sen. Claire McCaskill, right, pictured with Joe Biden and Barack Obama, seems confident in her chances in light of her opponent Akin's recent controversies.Todd Akin not dropping out of Senate race, says GOP has overreacted to 'legitimate rape' commenthttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/21/todd-akin-says-hes-not-dropping-out-of-senate-race-say-gop-has-overreacted-to-legitimate-rape-comment/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/21/todd-akin-says-hes-not-dropping-out-of-senate-race-say-gop-has-overreacted-to-legitimate-rape-comment/#commentsTue, 21 Aug 2012 18:11:40 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=204784

Embattled Republican Congressman Todd Akin says he’s staying in the race for a Missouri Senate seat despite pressure from many corners, including some heavyweight Republicans, to drop out after he said women’s bodies could prevent pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape”.

“By taking this stand, this is going to strengthen our country,” Akin said Tuesday. “It will strengthen the Republican Party.”

He also said his party has had “a little bit of an overreaction” to his comments, which he argues were not morally or ethically wrong, just “a word in the wrong place.”

Akin made the statements on former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s radio show Tuesday.

EXCLUSIVE: Todd Akin announces on my radio show that he will remain in the Missouri Senate Race.

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” he said.

The comment spurred outrage across the country and drew swift rebukes from both President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnel, said Akin’s comments “prevent him from effectively representing” the GOP and strongly hinted he should step down, saying Akin should “take time with his family” to think about his future in politics.

Two other Republican senators, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, were less diplomatic and said Akin should step down.

According to the Associated Press, donors have begun distancing themselves from Akin and the GOP brass has told Akin that $5 million in advertising set aside for his bid will be spent elsewhere.

Anonymous Republican sources also told AP that party officials had tried to talk to Akin but they were having trouble reaching him Monday night and Tuesday.

MORE CONTROVERSY

Akin did receive some support from Republicans, including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who came to Akin’s defence and then created his own controversy with his comments on rape.

While defending Akin’s voting record, King said he hadn’t heard of instances in which young victims of statutory rape or incest become pregnant.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty ImagesRep. Steve King (R-IA) testifies during a healthcare hearing January 6, 2011 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

“I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way, and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter,” King said.

On Tuesday, King issued a strong statement accusing the “liberal press and their allies” of “[twisting] my words.”

“I never said, nor do I believe, a woman, including minors, cannot get pregnant from rape, statutory rape or incest. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, shameful, disgusting and nothing but an attempt to falsely define who I am,” King’s statement said.

“I have never heard of and categorically reject the so-called medical theory that launched this controversy.”

President Barack Obama shrugged off attacks about his national security record yesterday from a group of former U.S. spies and commandos who have accused him of taking too much credit for the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, which says it is a non-partisan group, launched a media campaign accusing Obama of leaking information to “the enemy” and taking undue credit for the May 2011 operation in which U.S. Navy SEALs killed bin Laden.

“I don’t take these folks too seriously,” Obama told the Virginian-Pilot newspaper. “One of their members is a ‘birther’ who denies I was born here, despite evidence to the contrary. You’ve got another who was a Tea Party candidate in a recent election.

“This kind of stuff springs up before election time.”

Reuters reported that the group has extensive links to the Republican Party.

Related

Records filed with federal and state authorities, and material posted on the Internet, show that key players in the campaign by the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund include individuals with current or former affiliations with national and local Republican Party organizations. These include the group’s treasurer, lawyer and TV producers.

Spokesmen for the fund, which uses the nickname OPSEC — spy jargon for “operational security” — have said that it is non-partisan and that its supporters include Republicans, Democrats and independents who are upset at how recent news leaks may have damaged U.S. national security.

In a 22-minute film which it released last week, OPSEC presented soundbites from former U.S. intelligence and special operations personnel — some of whom have Republican or conservative links — who accused Obama of “leaking information to the enemy” and of taking undue credit for the May 2011 operation in which U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden.

The Obama campaign responded days later, accusing Republicans of trying to “Swift Boat” the president, a reference to hardball smear tactics used to attack the war record of Democratic Senator John Kerry when he unsuccessfully challenged George W. Bush for the White House in 2004.

When OPSEC first announced its media campaign earlier this week, one of its representatives, Chad Kolton, who worked as a spokesman for the Director of National Intelligence during George W. Bush’s presidency, insisted the group’s message was non-political.

“You’ll see throughout the film that concern about protecting the lives of intelligence and Special Forces officers takes precedence over partisanship,” Kolton said.

E. Mark Braden, a Washington lawyer who advises OPSEC, said the group included Democrats and independents. But the records and web postings show that key people involved in setting up OPSEC and working on its media campaign have current or past direct ties to the Republican Party or related groups.

Braden, the OPSEC legal advisor, confirmed in an interview that during the 1980s he worked as chief counsel for the Republican National Committee, the party’s central organization. He said that since leaving that job he has represented numerous Republican-related political causes, though he has also represented non-Republican clients.

Kerry Campaign via Getty ImagesOPSEC's attacks on Barack Obama have been likened to the "Swift Boat" campaign against John Kerry, seen in this handout image standing with military personnel in an unspecified location circa the 1960s.

REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT

One of the Republican-leaning organizations that Braden represented during the 2008 presidential election cycle, an obscure group called Majority America, listed as its president a Michael Smith of Alexandria, Virginia.

Smith, a Republican political consultant, also was involved in another Republican-related group called Making America’s Promise Secure that was involved in redistricting issues.

A spokesman for OPSEC confirmed that the same Michael Smith is the treasurer of OPSEC. Smith, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

Federal Election Commission filings show that one of the principal sources of finance for Smith’s Majority America group was a $250,000 donation from the late Carl Lindner, an Ohio businessman who backed numerous conservative causes – including the original 2004 “Swift Boat” campaign against John Kerry.

A Majority America website homepage copyrighted in 2010 says the group is a “non-partisan, non profit” group set up to “serve as a counter-weight to radical left wing message organizations, such as MoveOn.org.”

OPSEC has registered as a non-profit “social welfare” group, under section 501(c)4 of the U.S. tax code, a provision that allows it to keep its donors secret.

Braden said he was unaware that Lindner had financed the 2008 group in which he and Smith were involved. He declined to disclose information about OPSEC’s finances.

There are other links between OPSEC and individuals or entities involved with the Republican Party.

Greener and Hook, a “strategic communications” firm in Arlington, Virginia, says on its Internet home page that its services include TV production. It lists among its productions OPSEC’s main video, entitled “Dishonorable Disclosure,” as well as a 30-second trailer for the film and another teaser for it.

Among more than two dozen entities and individuals listed by Greener and Hook as “political clients” are the Republican National Committee, the 2012 Republican National Convention, the Republican Governor’s Association, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Federation of Republican Women. Representatives of Greener and Hook did not respond to a detailed voice mail requesting comment.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesOPSEC has reportedly been linked to Republican-affiliated groups such as Majority America, which has said it "serves as a counter-weight to radical left wing message organizations, such as MoveOn.org," members of which are pictured protesting Mitt Romney above.

ALEXANDRIA OFFICE

OPSEC rents an office in Alexandria, Virginia from a political consulting firm with Republican ties named The Trailblazer Group. Both OPSEC and Trailblazer said they have no relationship beyond sharing premises.

OPSEC spokesman Chad Kolton said that Dave King, a former special forces soldier who appears in OPSEC’s film, is a political independent and that Gabriel Gomez, a former Navy SEAL who is “doing media” for the group, was an Obama donor in 2008.

Gomez said on Friday that he had given money to Obama’s campaign in 2008 but that he has supported both Democratic and Republican politicians at the local level. He said he had become involved with OPSEC because the jobs of undercover or commando operatives have been “made harder by these leaks.”

Gomez said details of secret operations “don’t need to be out in public” and that there had “just been a spike in leaks so that it finally reached a tipping point.”

Kolton said the involvement of Republicans in OPSEC, alongside other politically independent veterans, was not in dispute.

But he added that, “No one can also dispute that Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and respected military leaders like Admiral McRaven have said there are more leaks than ever before under this Administration and that these leaks put American lives at risk.” Admiral William McRaven, who now heads the U.S. Special Operations Command, oversaw the bin Laden raid.

“The Obama campaign’s response hasn’t said a single word to acknowledge the problem of leaks or the risk they carry,” Kolton said.

U.S. officials point out that the Obama administration has “aggressively” prosecuted alleged national security leakers and that some of the reporters who wrote stories containing alleged leaks have said they did not originate with the White House.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0&w=640&h=390]

With files from Mark Hosenball and Alexander Cohen, Reuters

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/21/barack-obama-dismisses-attacks-on-national-security-record-from-birther-linked-anti-leak-group/feed/4stdU.S. President Barack Obama speaks during the daily press briefing at the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House August 20, 2012 in Washington, DC.OPSEC's attacks on Barack Obama have been likened to the "Swift Boat" campaign against John Kerry, seen in this handout image standing with military personnel in an unspecified location circa the 1960s. OPSEC has reportedly been linked to Republican-affiliated groups such as Majority America, which has said it "serves as a counter-weight to radical left wing message organizations, such as MoveOn.org," members of which are pictured protesting Mitt Romney above.Todd Akin asks for 'forgiveness' in new ad as 5 p.m. withdrawal deadline loomshttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/21/5-p-m-deadline-to-withdraw-adds-to-pressure-for-todd-akin-to-quit-race-after-legitimate-rape-comment-furor/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/21/5-p-m-deadline-to-withdraw-adds-to-pressure-for-todd-akin-to-quit-race-after-legitimate-rape-comment-furor/#commentsTue, 21 Aug 2012 12:58:05 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=204635

ST. LOUIS — The embattled Republican candidate in one of the most closely watched U.S. Senate contests vowed to fight on, but a significant deadline loomed Tuesday that was bound to intensify pressure on him to abandon the race over his comments that women’s bodies can prevent pregnancies in cases of “legitimate rape.”

Congressman Todd Akin spent Monday trying to salvage his once-promising bid against incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill in a race long targeted by Republicans as crucial to regaining control of the Senate.
But ominous signs were mounting against the six-term legislator from Missouri state, most notably the apparent loss of millions of dollars in campaign advertising money.

Akin went on two conservative radio shows Monday, pledging to keep the campaign alive, even as some people in his own party urged him to step aside. And early Tuesday he posted an apology video online, but made no mention of the race.

The decision has some urgency. Missouri election law allows candidates to withdraw 11 weeks before Election Day. That means the deadline to exit the Nov. 6 election is 5 p.m. Tuesday. Otherwise, a court order would be needed to remove a name from the ballot.

“I was told the decision has to be made by 5 tomorrow, but I was calling you and letting you know that I’m announcing today that we’re in,” Akin told radio host Sean Hannity.

In a radio interview with former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Akin repeatedly apologized for the remarks but also vowed to stay in the race.

“The good people of Missouri nominated me, and I’m not a quitter,” Akin said.

The uproar began Sunday, when St. Louis television station KTVI aired an interview in which Akin was asked if he would support abortions for women who have been raped.

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said.

Later Sunday, Akin released a statement saying that he “misspoke” during the interview.

In the interviews with Huckabee and Hannity, he apologized repeatedly, acknowledging that rape can lead to conception.

“Rape is never legitimate. It’s an evil act. It’s committed by violent predators,” Akin said. “I used the wrong words the wrong way.”

But the damage had already been done. The comments drew a sharp rebuke from fellow Republicans, including presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his vice-presidential choice, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst US President Barack Obama (L) waves to visitors and walks with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) (R) as they depart from the White House in Washington, March 10, 2010.

The Senate’s top Republican said Akin’s comments about rape might “prevent him from effectively representing” the Republican Party. Mitch McConnell called on Akin to “take time with his family” to consider whether he should continue in the Missouri Senate race.

Two other Republican senators, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, urged Akin to resign.

Akin also apparently lost a key source of funding. Sen. John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, told Akin that $5 million in advertising set aside for Missouri will be spent elsewhere and that Akin will get no other help from the committee, according to a committee official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversation was private.

Cornyn told Akin that he was endangering the Republicans’ hopes of getting a Senate majority by staying in the race, the official said.

At least one outside group that has pounded McCaskill with ads, the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads organization, also pulled its ads from Missouri.

In an apparent effort to claw back some of that funding, Akin posted a video to YouTube early Tuesday in which he described himself as a compassionate father of two daughters, apologized for his poor choice of words and clarified that he understands the possible outcome of rape.

“Fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is rape has many victims. The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness,” he said.

President Barack Obama said Monday that Akin’s comments underscore why politicians — most of whom are men — should not make health decisions on behalf of women.

“Rape is rape,” Obama said. And the idea of distinguishing among types of rape “doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.”

J. Scott Applewhite / The Associated Press / FileRepublican vice president candidate Paul Ryan, centre, works with Republican budget committee members on Capitol Hill in Washington. Rep. Todd Akin, right, caused a public outcry after comments made in an interview posted Sunday.

It was just two weeks ago that Akin was at the top of the political world in Missouri after winning a hotly contested three-way battle with millionaire businessman John Brunner and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman for the right to challenge McCaskill in the November election. Missouri has grown increasingly conservative in recent years, and McCaskill is seen as vulnerable.

She was not among those calling for her opponent to get out of the race.

“What’s startling to me is that (Republican) Party bigwigs are coming down on him and saying that he needs to kick sand in the face of all the primary voters,” McCaskill said at a campaign event Monday in suburban St. Louis. “I want Missourians to make a choice in this election based on policy, not backroom politics.”

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said a woman who is raped “has no control over ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e., pregnancy). To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths.”

Between 10,000 and 15,000 abortions nationwide occur each year among women whose pregnancies resulted from rape or incest. An unknown number of babies are born to rape victims, the group said.

Research on the prevalence of rape and rape-related pregnancies is spotty. One estimate published in 1996 said about 5 per cent of rapes result in pregnancy, or about 32,000 pregnancies among adult women each year.

Still, the idea about rape and pregnancy has been raised in anti-abortion circles for at least three decades.

Leon Holmes, onetime head of Arkansas Right to Life, wrote in a 1980 letter to a newspaper that concern for rape victims “is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami.” Holmes went on to become a federal judge.

Abortion foes in the Pennsylvania and North Carolina legislatures have made similar statements. And in Arkansas in 1998, Republican Senate candidate Fay Boozman came under fire for saying pregnancies from rape were uncommon. He apologized and later acknowledged that his unsuccessful campaign never recovered from the criticism. He died in 2005.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/21/5-p-m-deadline-to-withdraw-adds-to-pressure-for-todd-akin-to-quit-race-after-legitimate-rape-comment-furor/feed/8stdMissouri Rep. Todd Akin apologized Monday for his televised comments that women's bodies are able to prevent pregnancies if they are victims of "a legitimate rape," but he refused to heed calls to abandon his bid for the Senate.US President Barack Obama (L) waves to visitors and walks with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) (R) as they depart from the White House in Washington, March 10, 2010. Obama is traveling to St. Louis to deliver remarks on health care. Paul Ryan, Todd Akin, Bill FloresTodd Akin's 'legitimate rape' comments 'inexcusable,' Mitt Romney sayshttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/20/todd-akins-legitimate-rape-comments-inexcusable-mitt-romney-says/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/20/todd-akins-legitimate-rape-comments-inexcusable-mitt-romney-says/#commentsMon, 20 Aug 2012 17:30:03 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=204463

ST. LOUIS — Missouri Congressman Todd Akin was keeping a low profile Monday, a day after he said women’s bodies are able to prevent pregnancies in “a legitimate rape” situation and that conception is rare in such cases.

Campaign spokesman Ryan Hite said the congressman was making no public appearances Monday, and did not plan any further comments on the issue. He cancelled a scheduled Monday morning radio interview, though reportedly made an appearance on Mike Huckabee’s radio show this afternoon.

Akin’s comments brought a swift rebuke from the campaign of presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his choice for vice-president, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Romney went further in an interview with National Review Online, calling Akin’s comment “inexcusable.”

“Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong,” Romney said. “Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive.”

The six-term congressman is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, opposing Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill in the November election.

The election is one of this year’s most closed watched races as it represents one of the Republicans’ best chances of defeating a Democratic incumbent as they try to gain control of the Senate.

Asked in an interview Sunday on KTVI-TV if he would support abortions for women who have been raped, Akin said: “It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Later Sunday, Akin released a statement saying that he “misspoke” during the interview, though the statement did not say specifically which points.

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year,” Akin’s statement said.

Related

Akin also said in the statement he believes “deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.”

The Missouri Senate race is one of the more hotly contested, with control of the Senate up for grabs. McCaskill, who is seeking a second term, is considered vulnerable because of her strong ties to President Obama — she was an early supporter in 2008 — and the fact that Missouri is considered an increasingly conservative state.

In an emailed statement Sunday, McCaskill called Akin’s comments “offensive.”

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” McCaskill said. “The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.”

This month, Akin, 65, won the state’s Republican U.S. Senate primary by a comfortable margin. During the primary, Akin enhanced his standing with TV ads in which former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee praised him as “a courageous conservative” and “a Bible-based Christian” who “supports traditional marriage” and “defends the unborn.”

Akin, a former state lawmaker who first won election to the U.S. House in 2000, also has a long-established base among evangelical Christians and was endorsed in the primary by more than 100 pastors.

Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, on Sunday called Akin’s remarks “flat-out astonishing.”

Akin was interviewed on KTVI’s “The Jaco Report,” and also talked about numerous campaign issues, such as voter ID laws, the economy and Medicare. KTVI said the interview was conducted earlier in the week.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/20/todd-akins-legitimate-rape-comments-inexcusable-mitt-romney-says/feed/6stdMitt Romney, right, has delivered a swift rebuke to Representative Todd Akin, left, after the Republican congressman stated publicly that women's bodies are able to prevent pregnancies in a "legitimate rape" situation and that conception in such cases is rare.Republican Congressman says he 'misspoke' when he said women rarely get pregnant from 'legitimate rape'http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/20/republican-congressman-says-he-misspoke-when-he-said-women-rarely-get-pregnant-from-legitimate-rape/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/20/republican-congressman-says-he-misspoke-when-he-said-women-rarely-get-pregnant-from-legitimate-rape/#commentsMon, 20 Aug 2012 13:20:23 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=204295

ST. LOUIS — Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, a conservative Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that women’s bodies can prevent pregnancies in the case of “a legitimate rape,” adding that conception in such cases is rare.

Akin, a six-term congressman running against incumbent Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill, was asked in an interview on St. Louis television station KTVI if he would support abortions for women who have been raped.

“It seems to me first of all from what I understand from doctors that’s really rare,” Akin said.

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said of a rape victim’s chances of becoming pregnant.

Akin said in an emailed statement later Sunday that he “misspoke” during the interview, though the statement did not specify which points or comments.

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year,” Akin’s statement said.

McCaskill, who is seeking a second term, said Sunday in an emailed statement that she found the comments “offensive.”

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” McCaskill said. “The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.”

This month, Akin won the state’s Republican U.S. Senate primary by a comfortable margin. During the primary, Akin enhanced his standing with TV ads in which former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee praised him as “a courageous conservative” and “a Bible-based Christian” who “supports traditional marriage” and “defends the unborn.”

Akin, a former state lawmaker who first won election to the U.S. House in 2000, also has a long-established base among evangelical Christians and was endorsed in the primary by more than 100 pastors.

Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, on Sunday called Akin’s remarks “flat-out astonishing.”

Akin was interviewed on KTVI’s “The Jaco Report,” and also talked about numerous campaign issues, such as voter ID laws, the economy and Medicare. KTVI said the interview was conducted earlier in the week.

Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri, caused a public outcry Sunday over his claim that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant because the female body can prevent unwanted pregnancies. The Republican, who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill was made the unusual claim to defend his opposition to abortion rights for rape victims.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Akin said if the rape victim did become pregnant, he would still be opposed to abortion as a legal option.

“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,” Akin said. “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Akin has previously called for and end to the school lunch program and a ban on the morning-after pill.

J. Scott Applewhite / The Associated Press / FileRepublican vice president candidate Paul Ryan, centre, works with Republican budget committee members on Capitol Hill in Washington. Rep. Todd Akin, right, caused a public outcry after comments made in an interview posted Sunday.

Talking Points Memo reported that in 2011, the House GOP dropped language from a bill that would have limited federal financial assistance for an abortion to victims of “forcible rape.”

Talking Points Memo also reported that as a state legislator, Akin questioned whether an anti-marital rape law might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

WASHINGTON — Faced with Democratic Party assaults on vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan, Republicans have made the political calculation that a counter-attack can preserve support among senior citizens who could sway the November election’s outcome.

“Democrats are asking for it,” Mike Shields, political director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a memo to party operatives on Monday, just days after presidential hopeful Mitt Romney announced Ryan as his running mate.

Wisconsin Congressman Ryan has won the backing of party conservatives for policies aimed at cutting billions of dollars from the U.S. deficit. The most politically risky has been a proposal to transform the government’s Medicare health plan for the elderly into a program that would give seniors vouchers to manage their own healthcare costs.

The danger, according to political analysts, is that elderly dislike for Ryan’s plan could shave off as much as 5 percentage points of voter support from the Republican ticket in closely fought races in half a dozen swing states, including Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Many Republican officials initially expressed misgivings about the Ryan pick. But a growing number now believe a powerful offensive could recast Medicare as a debate about President Barack Obama’s unpopular healthcare reform law, a tactic that drew enough senior citizen support in 2010 to win a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The party also hopes to present Romney and Ryan as the team with the best plan to safeguard Medicare against future financial problems.

Ryan was already telegraphing the message late on Tuesday. “They turned Medicare into a piggy bank to finance Obamacare. The Obama campaign thinks it’s an achievement that they raided Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and we want to point that out,” Ryan said in a Fox News interview.

‘They turned Medicare into a piggy bank to finance Obamacare’

The top Republican in the U.S. Congress, John Boehner, outlined a similar strategy during a conference call with Republican lawmakers the same day.

Obama fired back by saying his rivals were being “pretty dishonest about my plan,” knowing that their own view on Medicare was “not very popular.”

A national Republican television commercial aired this week warning senior citizens that “money you paid” into Medicare would be used to fund “a massive new government program that’s not for you.” The party also plans to target Democratic House incumbents in six states with ads attacking their support for Medicare cuts in separate ads slated to begin on Friday.

“There’s a fundamental misunderstanding that somehow this is not an issue that we’re going to be 100 percent on offense on,” said Sean Spicer of the Republican National Committee.

“But if you clearly define the issue, the problem that exists and the solutions that we offer, it’s a winning issue.”

There are still many risks to the strategy, political experts say. With nearly 50 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries, Medicare represents a major issue for both parties in deficit talks because healthcare costs tend to rise faster than inflation. The program is forecast to grow from $590 billion this year to $1 trillion in 2021.

Senior citizen voters have also been among the Republicans’ most reliable supporters in recent elections, backing conservative policies on fiscal and social issues including gay marriage.

“They have put in play a group that prior to this was going to vote more Republican,” said Robert Blendon, a political analyst at the Harvard School of Public Health.

The Republican national convention in Tampa, Florida, later this month could be the party’s best chance to define Medicare in favorable terms.

“If they fail, then Medicare will be used to bludgeon the GOP’s candidates, from top to bottom of the ticket,” said Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Jeff Swensen/Getty ImagesRepublican vice presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks at a campaign event at Walsh University on August 16, 2012 in North Canton, Ohio.

Medicare advocates contend that Ryan’s plan would leave senior citizens responsible for thousands more dollars in per capita healthcare costs every year.

Ryan supporters, however, say it would spawn competition among doctors and other providers that would rein in cost growth, while streamlining the federal budget. They also argue that Obama’s healthcare reform, due to take full effect in 2014, cuts $716 billion from Medicare.

The Obama administration attributes those savings to the law’s effort to shift Medicare away from a system that pays doctors for the number of services they provide to a model that rewards the overall quality of care a patient.

‘They have put in play a group that prior to this was going to vote more Republican’

Whether “Obamacare” or “Ryancare” proves to be the more potent political toxin remains to be seen. Obama’s Medicare savings proved unpopular with elderly voters in 2010, when exit polls showed older voters favoring Republicans by a 57-41 percent margin. But opposition to the Ryan plan has been much stronger with seniors 2-1 against, according to the Pew Research Center.

“They are deeply concerned and wary of changes generally in Medicare and Social Security,” said Pew associate director Carroll Doherty.

Mindful of a failure back in 2010 to effectively sell Obamacare, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began delivering automated phone messages to voters this week, warning them against Ryan’s Medicare strategy in 50 districts where Republicans are up for re-election.

A new Obama Web video released on Wednesday uses TV news reporting on the Ryan plan to drive home the message that Republicans would “end Medicare as we know it.”

WASHINGTON — Escalating an increasingly acrimonious campaign, Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney dug in Wednesday on his charge that President Barack Obama’s campaign was being driven by “division and attack and hatred” and called on the president to lift the tone of political discourse.

Romney went on national television to say he thinks Obama is “running just to hang onto power, and I think he would do anything in his power” to remain in office.

Obama campaign spokesman Jennifer Psaki said Romney’s comments once again seemed “unhinged.” The Democratic campaign had a similar response Tuesday night when Romney first accused Obama of running a campaign of “hate.”

Romney shot back: “I think unhinged would have to characterize what we’ve seen from the president’s campaign.”

“These personal attacks, I think, are just demeaning to the office of the White House,” he added.

The campaign has been lurching toward a more intensive stage in the wake of Romney’s announcement Saturday of conservative Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice presidential running mate.

Even before that, both campaigns and independent groups supporting them had been running increasingly provocative TV ads.

Priorities USA Action, a group supporting Obama, ran a commercial suggesting Romney was personally responsible for the death from cancer of the wife of a man who worked at a steel plant that was bought and subsequently shut down by Romney’s venture capital firm, Bain Capital.

Scott Olson/Getty ImagesU.S. President Barack Obama speaks to voters during a campaign stop at the Waterloo Center for the Arts August 14, 2012 in Waterloo, Iowa.

The Romney campaign is running an ad, widely discredited by independent fact-checkers, that accuses Obama of gutting welfare reform. Romney’s team is also running an ad that criticizes Obama for raiding the Medicare trust fund, a charge the president’s team labeled dishonest and hypocritical.

The tone reached a fever pitch Tuesday in connection with a remark Vice President Joe Biden made to a mostly black audience in Danville, Va. Commenting in response to Republican criticism that the Obama administration had sought to regulate Wall Street too tightly, Biden said the GOP wanted to “unchain Wall Street.”

The vice president went on to say, “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

Speaking in Wytheville, Va., later Tuesday, Biden said he had meant to use the term “unshackled.” But he did not apologize, and he mocked the Romney campaign for showing outrage.

In his interview Wednesday on “CBS This Morning,” Romney said, “I can’t speak for anybody else, but I can say that I think the comments of the vice president were one more example of a divisive effort to keep from talking about the issues.”

“The president’s campaign is all about division and attack and hatred and my campaign is about getting Americans back to work and creating more unity in this country,” he said.

Romney was holding private fundraisers Wednesday in North Carolina and Alabama. The president was campaigning in Iowa on Wednesday, the final day of his three-day bus trip through the Midwestern swing state. First lady Michelle Obama was joining the president, marking their first joint appearance on the campaign trail since May.

The developing Obama strategy comes as Romney and Ryan make clear they plan to campaign aggressively on Medicare, not run away from it. In person and in a television ad, the Republicans argued Tuesday that Obama is the one who cut spending for Medicare to put money toward his divisive health care overhaul.

In states with large military and veteran populations – Florida, Ohio and Virginia among them – the Obama campaign plans to attack Ryan’s proposed cuts for veterans’ benefits and care, a campaign official said. The official was not authorized to discuss the campaign strategy publicly and requested anonymity.

In Colorado, Ohio and Iowa, the campaign sees opportunities to capitalize on Ryan’s proposed cuts to clean energy industries that are taking hold in those states. The Obama team will argue that cutting those investments would essentially cede new energy technologies – and the jobs that could come with them – to countries like China, the official said.

In Nevada and several other states, the campaign plans to push the impact of Ryan’s budget on education, citing estimates that it would cut 200,000 children a year from Head Start, an early education program, and reduce Pell grants for 10 million college students.

The campaign launched an ad Tuesday in five states – Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia – that links Romney directly to the Ryan budget’s impact on college grants.

Obama’s team may launch other paid advertising on elements of Ryan’s budget soon. But for now, the campaign is focused on getting its message out in local media and directly to voters through its ample grass-roots network, which still trumps Romney’s ground game in some states.

Despite ramping up new areas of attack, Obama’s campaign is still eager to link Romney to Ryan’s Medicare proposals, both on the national level and in battleground states with a significant number of voters over the age of 65, including Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Pennsylvania.

The president’s pollsters wrote in a campaign memo that Ryan’s Medicare proposals are a “game changer” in Florida, the battleground state with the most electoral votes up for grabs in November.

Ryan, interviewed on Fox News Channel, said he and Romney believe Medicare can be a winning issue for Republicans in the fall. “Absolutely, because we’re the ones who are offering a plan to save Medicare, to protect Medicare, to strengthen Medicare,” he said.

‘These personal attacks, I think, are just demeaning to the office of the White House’

Ryan didn’t say so, but the budgets he has written in the House both called for leaving in place the cuts to Medicare that he is now criticizing. Romney has consistently favored restoring the funds, and his running mate said, “I joined the Romney ticket.”

“First, he attacked the president for the very same Medicare savings that he includes in his own budget,” Kanner said in a statement. “In the same breath, he falsely claimed that the Romney-Ryan budget protects Medicare – in fact, their plan would end Medicare as we know it, leaving seniors with nothing but a voucher in place of the guaranteed benefits they rely on today.”

The Obama campaign released a web video Wednesday that declares Romney and Ryan “plan to end Medicare as we know it.” It features news commentators and liberal analysts such as economist Paul Krugman declaring that Ryan’s House Republican budget would mean millions of older Americans would be unable to afford health care.

The video declares that Romney has lied about Obama’s record on Medicare, and says Obama’s proposal cuts payments to Medicare providers but offers more benefits to Medicare participants.

Romney and the Republican National Committee planned to release a new Spanish language TV ad Wednesday highlighting Obama’s economic policies. Romney’s campaign didn’t say where it would run or how much money they plan to spend on the spot.

WASHINGTON — Paul Ryan’s record on women’s issues and abortion is coming into sharpened focus since Mitt Romney tapped him as his running mate — in particular, the lawmaker’s anti-abortion bill that puts him at odds with the eldest son of the Republican presidential hopeful.

Tagg Romney and his wife, Jen, announced the birth of twin boys in May with the help of a surrogate mother and in vitro fertilization — a form of assisted reproductive technology that could be rendered illegal under the Sanctity of Human Life Act, co-sponsored by Ryan.

The bill states that human life begins the moment an egg is fertilized. But in IVF, some embryos are typically destroyed or discarded in the process after being fertilized by sperm outside the body.

Typically, doctors fertilize several eggs; the ones that fail to thrive after being implanted in the womb are discarded. Leftover embryos that are not implanted are often frozen, used for medical research or destroyed.

Many right-to-life groups oppose IVF since it results in the destruction of human embryos.

Women’s groups have been zeroing in on Ryan’s anti-abortion record ever since he was unveiled as Romney’s running mate over the weekend.

They point out that Ryan, a Catholic congressman from Wisconsin, has consistently earned a 100 per cent voting approval rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

Romney, meantime, has a famously erratic record on abortion, stem cell research and even IVF.

The former Massachusetts governor attempted to explain away his wildly divergent public comments on IVF embryos as recently as May, when he was asked in an interview about his new twin grandsons.

“I believe that when a couple gets together and decides that they want to bring a child into the Earth, and they go to a fertility clinic to do so, and if they’re going to be through that process a leftover embryo or two, that they should be able to decide whether to preserve that embryo for future use or to destroy it,” he said, adding that those embryos can be utilized for “research and experimentation.”

“And so for me, that’s where the line is drawn. Those surplus embryos from fertility clinics can be used for research.”

Yet Romney has also said he had an “epiphany” in 2004, becoming pro-life during a discussion with an embryonic stem cell researcher. A year later, however, Romney said he supported stem cell research using IVF embryos.

Ryan, on the other hand, has been steady in his belief that human life begins at fertilization throughout his seven terms as congressman. And in addition to co-sponsoring the Sanctity of Human Life Act and Right to Life Act, which both state life begins at fertilization, he also co-sponsored a law that prohibits federal funds from being used for any health-care coverage that includes abortion.

In a presidential election in which Democrats are attempting to portray Republicans as anti-women, Ryan’s and Romney’s apparently opposing viewpoints on IVF could cause headaches for them on the campaign trail.

“If Romney’s sons have done something that the vice-presidential candidate thinks should be criminal, then that absolutely should and will become a campaign issue,” Jo Freeman, a feminist writer and political scientist, said in an interview Tuesday.

“It’s clear he approved of his son’s actions, and now he has a running mate who would criminalize those actions. That’s a problem.”

As many as 60,000 babies are born in the U.S. every year thanks to IVF. A book written by Ron Scott, a distant cousin of the Republican presidential hopeful, claims that three of Romney’s five sons have used the procedure to produce some of his 18 grandchildren.

“Three of the sons have wrestled with fertility issues in their own families and, to help things along, have sought solutions that are seemingly inconsistent with their father’s views on abortion and stem cell research,” Scott wrote in “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look At The Man And His Politics.”

Romney and his children are practising Mormons. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “strongly discourages” both surrogate mothers and IVF.

In messages on Facebook and Twitter in May, Tagg Romney made a point of thanking the surrogate after his twin boys were born. It was the second time he and his wife had used the surrogate; she also carried their two-year-old son, Jonathan.

“A special thanks to our gestational surrogate who made this possible for us,” he wrote on Facebook. “Life truly is a miracle, and we feel so blessed to be able to celebrate the arrival of these precious boys into our family.”

Romney’s famously spotty record on abortion rights has caused the Republican party’s Christian evangelical base to view him with deep suspicion.

While running for governor of left-leaning Massachusetts just 10 years ago, Romney pledged “to protect a woman’s right to choose.” He also frequently cited his brother-in-law’s sister, Ann Keenan, an unmarried teen who died getting a botched illegal abortion in 1963.

Romney’s own mother, Lenore, also unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970 as an abortion moderate.

Freeman says Romney’s veering positions are sadly typical of those seeking public office in the U.S.

“There’s a strata of politicians in the United States for whom it is very important to be at the head of the parade,” Freeman said.

“They don’t care which direction the parade is going, so long as they’re at the front. That’s Romney, and that’s why you see him flip-flopping on so many issues. He completely contradicts himself because he’s seeking to appeal to whatever constituency he needs at the time, regardless of his personal beliefs.”

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/14/would-paul-ryans-anti-abortion-anti-ivf-bill-criminalize-mitt-romneys-son/feed/11stdDES MOINES, IA - JANUARY 03: Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, speaks as his wife Ann Romney and their sons (L-R) Matt, Craig and Tagg look on at the Hotel Fort Des Moines on the night of the Iowa Caucuses January 3, 2012 in Des Moines, Iowa.Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and vice presidential candidate and Wisconsin native Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) (L) greet supporters during a campaign event at the Waukesha Expo Center on August 12, 2012 in Waukesha, Wisconsin.